Talk:What Is a Woman?/Archive 1

Daily Dot
At RSP, Daily Dot is described as "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable, in particular for Internet culture. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." The material sourced to DD is not related to internet culture, and is undue in this context. It has been removed several times - don't add it again without discussing here Izzy Borden (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot may be the only source in this whole article that is marked green (generally reliable) in the WP:RSP list. It isn't usually a WP:BESTSOURCE, but in this article it is one of the best. Llll5032 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This article cites The Dessert News, which is Green, and many sources which are not even categorized on WP:RSP. It isn't usually a WP:BESTSOURCE, and it isn't one here. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Deseret News and the National Post are also mostly OK, per WP:RSN and WP:RSP. Most of the other sources are WP:RSOPINION or WP:QUESTIONABLE. Llll5032 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Here you are using a very questionable source that implies a living person has violated the law. The DD is ok for internet culture. This is not about internet culture, but about smearing a living person. Izzy Borden (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have to get consensus to remove The Daily Dot as a source in this article, but per WP:RSP, it's usually fine. X-Editor (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on those wishing to include disputed material. Beyond reliability issues, this is undue - what other source has reported on this? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Has Walsh disputed The Daily Dot's account? Llll5032 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a non-notable incident, which only a marginal source covered. Why would we want to smear Walsh in this manner? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no good reason to doubt the truth of the account, then it is WP:DUE to mention fairly, because there are few other RS in the article. A dispute is not a smear. Llll5032 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Letterboxd reviews
The claim that Letterboxd hid reviews of What is a Woman? was verified by Letterboxd themself, as shown in my sources. Please do not falsely label them as an unreliable. If no other issues are found with including that Letterboxd hid reviews, I will once again add this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates Finch (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing, Socrates Finch. If you can find a source marked in green in the list at the bottom of the WP:RSP page describing this (and follow any notes listed about those sources), then you will probably get consensus to include it. Llll5032 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing, LIII5032. My assessment that the "reliable" sources page is highly partisan and inaccurate itself notwithstanding, Letterboxd confirmed that they hid the reviews on Twitter. Would a citation to that tweet be considered tolerable? Socrates Finch (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia usually does not accept primary sources because they are too close to the subject and are biased as a result, and both The Daily Wire (the makers of the documentary) and Letterboxd's Twitter account would be primary sources. If you think the reliable sources page is partisan, discuss the issue at WP:RSN. X-Editor (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is what Letterboxd said then that's what Letterboxd said. Why does it matter where you read a quote, as long as the quote is true? Socrates Finch (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some explanations at WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:INDY. Llll5032 (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Using primary sources for controversial statements is not allowed in general, which isn't politically biased in any way. X-Editor (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used for statements about themselves. There's no problem to say "Letterbioxd said they did X" and used a letterboxd source for that. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BALASP, better to stick to third-party RS. Llll5032 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Content on Marci Bowers
please discuss here why you think the content on Marci Bowers is due for inclusion, and what reliable sources there are to support its inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The content on Marci bowers should be included because she is prominent in the film, and the content is highly relevant.  There are many sources of the material, including MarciBowers herself in the film, all of them reliable.   The fact that you appear to not like the content is not reason for you to delete it.
 * Futher, your reverts are deleting content that has nothing to do with Marci Bowers.
 * The onus is on you to explain why you think the multiple sources given, including Marci Bowers herself, are "unreliable".Wisefroggy (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You've read WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN backwards. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. As the editor who has both originally added the content, and has tried to re-add it several times now, the burden is on you to demonstrate how it is compliant with policy and due for inclusion.
 * As for the sources, I'll happily explain:
 * Spectator review - It's an unreliable source per WP:SPECTATOR, at best it can be used for the opinion of the author of the review, in this case Debbie Hayton, but it cannot be used to assert statements of fact.
 * Counter-currents review - Unreliable per discussion at RSN.
 * Nation and State - source appears to be a far-right blog, and is likely best described as a self published source and so unsuitable for BLP content
 * The Bridgehead - another blog of questionable political leanings, and best described as a self published source and so unsuitable for BLP content.
 * LGBTQIA Health Education profile - Obvious synthesis issues, because it does not link Dr Forcier to the documentary
 * University of Tennessee Knoxville profile - Same synthesis issues as per Dr Forcier, as it does not link Dr Grzanka in any way to the documentary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The material in question will be re-added unless you have a good explanation on how the multiple sources given, and Bower's own words, are an unreliable source.Wisefroggy (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions Marci Bowers in the infobox and as "a surgeon who specializes in gender confirmation surgeries" in the "Summary" section. Most of the sources you provided are also random blogs, which aren't very reliable, especially for an article about a controversial documentary. X-Editor (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent wording
"The documentary received a divided reception; a number of conservative reviewers praised it, while some other commentators called it transphobic."

By mentioning "conservative" it implies that the praise of the movie is politics dependent, however it leaves out "liberal" or "progressive" in the rest of the sentence. It's true that the documentary is political and has a clear political agenda behind it, but this wording implicitly implies that only conservative watchers praised the movie, exclusively. Also I find interesting the inconsistent use of "reviewers" and "commentators", as that's not really the same thing.

A more consistent wording would be "The documentary received a divided reception; a number of mostly conservative reviewers praised it, while some other, mostly liberal commentators, called it transphobic." I think it's best to leave out "conservative" and political affiliation here altogether. Here are some alternative wordings:

"The documentary received a divided reception; a number of reviewers praised it, while some other commentators called it transphobic." "The documentary received a divided reception; some reviewers praised it, while others called it transphobic." 2A00:A040:197:1220:94BF:7E54:F45:9C7A (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This has been under dispute for a while now. I’d personally support changing it back to political labelling for both since there’s a pretty blatant party-line split: conservatives are mixed-to-positive, liberals/LGBTQ reviews are extremely negative. Dronebogus (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most recognizable movie reviewers did not review it, and we have this problem because no third-party RS (WP:INDY) has discussed the reviews in a way we can paraphrase. But Dronebogus, I think your latest summation is fair. Llll5032 (talk)

Walsh's commentary about Mendez
Just wanted to expand upon my edit summaries. For the, The Daily Wire is not a reliable source. Nor given that it is the production company and distributor for the film an independent source for obvious reasons. So it can't be used in this way. For the, per WP:BLPSPS a tweet can be an acceptable source for statements by Walsh about Walsh, if it is making a non-controversial statement. Unfortunately that tweet was making allegations against Mendez that are in support of Walsh's position, so it failed both the unduly self-serving and involving claims about third parties parts of WP:BLPSELFPUB. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, to IP editor. The WP:BLP policy applies to all edits about living or recently deceased individuals, regardless of whether the article is a biography or some other content. Please see WP:BLP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict... but here follows my original response as I wrote it anyway:
 * Context: Walsh said Mendez/Rolling Stone did not watch the documentary. This was mentioned in a tweet and reported by a few other sources but it wasn't clear which source was best and using The Daily Wire for comment about itself seemed preferable. Note: The Daily Wire is already used a source elsewhere in this article. As an alternative, using Twitter as a reference to merely confirm that Walsh said it, seemed like it would be in keeping with Wikipedia policies on WP:VERIFICATION. The WP:BLPSPS guidelines are part of the "Biography of living persons" guidelines, I think it is a stretch to apply them to this Film article, BLP articles are held higher standards. I suppose the bigger problem is that the Mendez/Rolling Stone article is presented as if it was a review when it was merely an opinion piece, maybe including the direct response is not the best thing for an encyclopedia. This is a problem with the whole Critical response/Reception section (see discussions above) it is difficult to tell distinguish actual film reviews from political commentary and opinion pieces. (At the time of writing only 4 Rotten Tomatoes approved critics have reviewed this documentary. It would seem as if all the others are from political commentary not film reviews.) I'm not ready to tackle that larger problem but I do hope someone will get around to it eventually and make this encyclopedia article more objective and better for all readers. -- 109.77.192.78 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CoDaily is not a news organisation, it's a news aggregator. As far as I can tell none of the articles on that site are their own content, and all are merely redirects to other sources. Lafayette Paper appears to have only came into existence in February 2022, and doesn't seem to have any reputation as a reliable source as far as I can tell. For something this controversial, because it involves commentary about another person we would need several strong, independent, reliable sources to assess the due weight as to whether or not it should be included. Per WP:ONUS, while all information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. As it is right now, I'm unable to find any independent reliable sources who have followed up on this claim by Walsh. As such it does not seem like it is due for inclusion.
 * Per WP:BLP the BLP policy applies to all content, anywhere on Wikipedia, relating to living persons. It's not just that BLP articles are held to higher standards, it's that all BLP content is held to higher standards. That is both, in my experience across a wide variety of articles, and the text of the policy entirely non-negotiable.
 * I don't disagree that there are some issues with the critical response section. However this isn't just a film, it's a documentary about a politically controversial issue. Specifically gender identity. It is sadly to be expected that any review on the documentary will be inherently mixed with wider political commentary. It will be very difficult to separate out commentary on the merits of the film, from commentary on the arguments the film makes, because on some level those are intrinsically linked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the Daily Wire could be considered an "unreliable source" in this regard. The claim being made was not that "Mendez didn't watch the documentary," but that "Walsh accused Mendez of not watching the documentary."  The Daily Wire is, rather, the most reliable source for a statement of it's own employee. 75.73.52.24 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews, etc.
X-editor, you have removed some of the material added by Kn8916, even after I added an RSN-green source for this material and even though no sources dispute it, as far as I am aware. Do you want to explain your thinking? 17:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at that diff it might be an issue of POV ... or possibly something else. Text is quoted but it is not entirely clear who said "lure them into participating" and that is an opinion/accusation that should be clearly and directly attributed to whoever specifically said it. (It could simply have been an effort to keep it concise.) If it was up to me I might rewrite the whole paragraph entirely and start by stating the fact that Walsh created a group called "Gender Unity Project". Then after that state the opinions of various people that they thought it was misleading, with proper attribution. -- 109.76.201.113 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is there a rolling stone review?
I thought wikipedia, which stands for testing authenticity of every citation they put must have put a little more effort in understanding that the review by moises mendes II was done without actually watching the documentary at all. A clear proof was released by daily wire by the tracker which they used to see how much documentary was viewed. So this makes this review of the documentary disingenuous, false and highly biased as it was done without even looking at the material in question. Is any editor out here not ready to do this much basic fact checking? Or are we happy to include a review just because its one of the rare reviews from the left and absolutely unreliable as the original material which was reviewed wasn't viewed at all by the reviewer and just 17% by the editor. Editors, i think it's worth mentioning this fact or else this goes against wikipedia's policy of unreliable and not fact checked reviews which can be bogus and misleading. Thank you. 95.223.79.160 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:RSNP says of the Daily Wire "There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified." As for Rolling Stone, "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011-present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council). Doug Weller  talk 09:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * testing authenticity of every citation??? That has not been my experience, but anyway. I did try to highlight, his complaint that Mendez had not watched the film (or at best watched only a small part of it). The larger problem is that this article presents many opinion pieces without clearly distinguishing them from actual reviews. Rolling Stone don't actually call it a review, the opinion piece is filed as news, so again the real problem is technically with how Wikipedia presents it here. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit war over Instagram fair use
Starting this section because there's been a slow edit war now over the last two days regarding a : (which is allowed as fair use in some circumstances). At present I count two editors in favour of inclusion and three in favour of exclusion  and myself. The question is a simple one, why is this due for inclusion? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually completely fine with not including the fair use mention, as it isn't that big of a deal anyways. X-Editor (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say the whole section is undue - the allegation, the fair use issue=, and twitter's response. But If we are to include the allegation (from a very marginal source), we must at least also include the fair use issue, from the same source. Otherwise, we are implicitly accusing a living person of a copyright infringement or worse. We can include the longer treatment of the issue from the Daily Dot - that fair use sometimes applies, but may not apply here according to Instagram's terms of use - but we can't just ignore the issue. But as I wrote, I think the best solution is to just remove this entire trivial incident, which no mainstream source thought important enough to cover.Izzy Borden (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It entirely irrelevant and undue. It certainly does not belong in the Reception/Reaction section. The accusation of misappropriation of an image is at best trivial, if it had turned into an actual lawsuit it might merit a brief mention but it is just irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about this controversial documentary film. -- 109.79.73.200 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was surprised it had not been removed already so I removed it, and I was surprised that anyone still thought it was a good idea to restore it. Please note that the Dailydot.com might be a reliable source WP:RSPS (with caveats) but that only means this claim has been verified to exist, it does make it noteworthy and it does not mean an accusation deserves any attention in an encyclopedia article about this documentary. It does not serve readers of this encyclopedia to include irrelevant information. I've done it myself, I know the temptation to include things because they are available but that doesn't always make a better encyclopedia. Think about it, a Good article would not include something this trivial. There are better ways to improve this article, like focusing on any of the reliable people making serious criticisms of this documentary. -- 109.78.203.135 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot is one of the few sources reliable for facts that have discussed the film. Most of the other sources cited in this article are not RS. You can look them up at WP:RSP and WP:RSN. Llll5032 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The quality of other sources used in the article (for other things ) is really irrelevant. This is undue material from a marginal source, which smears a living person, and now the context required to avoid a libelous claim has been removed. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think the WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:DUE policies mean? Also, I do not see how that wording could have been libelous. Llll5032 (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Izzy per WP:RSP The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable, in particular for Internet culture. It is therefore not a marginal source.
 * Inclusion of the sentence fragment (which is allowed as fair use in some circumstances) is not supported by that source, who make it very clear that Instagram’s terms include an explanation of such factors, which include whether the content is transformed or used for commercial purposes, in which case it may not be deemed "fair use." To include it as it was is a blatant WP:OR violation because it is implying something that the source did not. There is no libelous claim in the content with the exclusion of the OR sentence fragment.
 * I've not reached an opinion at this time whether or not the remainder of the sentence is due, though given that it was published by one of the few reliable sources in the article I am leaning towards it being due. Are there any other reliable sources reporting on this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're accusing a living person of wrongdoing (at a minimum, copyright infringement, possibly the tort of invasion of privacy), and you don't see how that's potentially libelous? And you remove the context of how this could be fair use? There was no OR here, because the very source used to make the claim mentioned fair use, in this context. If you want to fine tune they wording, to include that Daily Dot thinks fair use *may* not apply, fine. I don't think DD is a reputable legal authority, and this a a question that ultimately is for courts to decide, but you can't just remove it. And no, there are no other reliable sources that reported this - that's exactly what makes it undue. There are multiple editors who object to this content, don't re-introduce this potentially libelous material unless you have clear consensus to do so. Izzy Borden (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're accusing a living person of wrongdoing...and you don't see how that's potentially libelous? No, we're not accusing a living person of wrongdoing. Per WP:INTEXT it is clear that the trans man whose image was used without permission was doing so.
 * There was no OR here, because the very source used to make the claim mentioned fair use, in this context. That's an erroneous understanding of WP:OR. For a reminder, the removed sentence fragment on fair use read: (which is allowed as fair use in some circumstances). For comparison, here is what the Daily Dot said about fair use: Images posted to public profiles on social media are often considered “fair use,” meaning that they can be reposted elsewhere without permission. There are various factors to consider, however. Instagram’s terms include an explanation of such factors, which include whether the content is transformed or used for commercial purposes, in which case it may not be deemed “fair use.”"
 * The issue with the removed text is that it is implying in wikivoice something the source did not. It's implying that Walsh' use of the image was covered or could be covered under fair use doctrine. However the Daily Dot makes clear, by referencing Instagram's terms of service, that using images from Instagram in a commercial work is not fair use. It is OR to say that Walsh' use of the image was covered under fair use, because the source we were citing categorically does not say that. It is also an NPOV issue to take Walsh' defence of this at face value, because it is contested by both the source (Daily Dot) and the man whose image Walsh used. WP:NPOV and WP:OR are two of our core content policies, they are non-negotiable. We do not allow content on wiki that violates either of those policies, which that sentence fragment violated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So first, you are misrepresenting the source. It does not say fair use does not apply, it says it *may* not apply. That is a legal question, to be decided by the courts, not for DD which is not a legal authority to decide, and certainly not for wikipedia editors to present as fact, based on DD. Second, as I said, though I think the entire section is undue, I am open to including it if we also provide the context on fair use. I am further open to rewording the text that was in the artilce to reflect that DD thinks fair use may not apply in this case- but you can't simply remove that context, and expose wikipedia to libel claims. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As to marginality of this source- it depends not just on the publication, but also on the author and the context. I think the DD article could be used to say that DD doubts the DDOS attack claims (the context: an internet-focused magazine commenting an an internet issue), but not to report as fact the libelous allegation of wrongdoing. (context: a legal claim about a living person, which requires a reputable legal authority). The author of this piece is clearly hostile to Walsh and the Daily Wire. The article contains tidbits like "The Daily Wire released a transphobic documentary on Wednesday." and 'Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire is a transphobic right-wing commentator" - do you think we could use this DD article to state as fact, in wikipedia's voice, that Walsh is transphobic? That should tell you something about the importance of context. Izzy Borden (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording you object to does not accuse Walsh of a crime. It describes a dispute, as described in a reliable source (WP:RSP), which articles are supposed to do per WP:VOICE: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not to engage in them." Also, please see WP:BIASED and WP:PROPORTION. Sometimes WP:INTEXT attribution is used as a WP:CONSENSUS choice when editors say a reliable source is biased. Llll5032 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a crime to be a libelous accusation. Invasion of Privacy is a tort, copyright infringement could be either a civil tort, or a criminal misdemeanor. In any case, accusing a living person of misbehavior is potentially libelous, and there's absolutely no reason to include this allegation, from a single, marginal source, in the article. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Izzy seems to be taking the view that this is a serious accusation and so should not be included. My view is that is a spurious accusation and that it is undue to give any weight to something so trivial, so I am coming to the same conclusion from a different angle. If the accusation of misappropriation of an image actually rose to an actual legal case or lawsuit (and stupid trivial lawsuits happen but at least then it would be noteworthy) and not merely an online accusation then I would change my opinion and say it was due attention in this encyclopedia article about this documentary. Twitter didn't even take the accusation seriously, why should this encyclopedia? There are similar cases of films where random people make accusations of plagiarism (not merely accusation of misappropriation of an image) but in those cases too editors have to make decisions about whether or not any weight should be given to such accusations. What is worse is that so much time is being wasted on this trivial accusation instead of improving the wording and presentation of the more substantial critiques of the documentary. -- 109.77.202.160 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Twitter's reported reaction may make the dispute more worthy to include, because it involves another party, a large social media network. Also, Twitter is not a RS, but the Daily Dot is. Llll5032 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * if it was a dispute worthy of inclusion, additional, more mainstream reliable sources would have commented on it. They didn't, illustrating the undue weight nature of this issue. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This film's release was limited to subscribers on one website. Few mainstream RS are discussing anything about the film, so when a RS does, it has more WP:WEIGHT. Llll5032 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true : ,,,,,, etc.. but if it was true- that would make the entire movie non notable - you can suggest article be deleted. Good luck with that. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources you cited above are WP:RSOPINION, which limits their use. A couple of others are in the WP:QUESTIONABLE category. Have you read those policies? Llll5032 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinions are comments about the movie, and the existence of such opinions in RSes puts the lie to your claim that "Few mainstream RS are discussing anything about the film". There's no problem in using opinions to describe notable opinions, which is what we are doing in the article. If you think the movie is not notable - Go ahead and suggest this article be deleted. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:WEIGHT policy addresses this question; it does not require deleting the article. Have you read WP:WEIGHT? Llll5032 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, if you are right and that "Few mainstream RS are discussing anything about the film", the relevant policy ia WP:NOTABILITY. As far as WP:WEIGHT, which applies to the specific incident in question, that policy says "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia". Izzy Borden (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot is a reliable source making a factual claim that a dispute exists; we are not describing its opinion. Has any source disputed the Daily Dot's factual claim? Llll5032 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia" is not clear to you? No source has bothered to deal with DD's claim because this is a trivial matter which is thus undue for the article. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules distinguish between how we treat facts (see WP:V) and viewpoints (see WP:DUE). If the only source disputing a fact is a Wikipedia editor, then consult WP:OR. Llll5032 (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:V: "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". You do not have such consensus. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We discuss on talk pages to achieve consensus (WP:CONSENSUS), based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Llll5032 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and multiple editors have explained that this material violates WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that one editor, you, has made a BLP claim. There is a noticeboard for asking questions about such claims, if we require more opinions. Llll5032 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made the BLP violation claim, and multiple other editors (and me) have raised the WP:UNDUE issue. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also a NPOV noticeboard. Llll5032 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As to marginality of this source- it depends not just on the publication, but also on the author and the context. Please read WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. There are limits to how far any editor can go to when questioning the reliability of a source.
 * do you think we could use this DD article to state as fact, in wikipedia's voice, that Walsh is transphobic? On its own no. As part of a bundle of independent media sources, it would allow us through WP:INTEXT to say something like Walsh has been described in the media as transphobic. However if while doing a complete source survey on Walsh it is discovered that he is overwhelmingly described as transphobic, and the Daily Dot is one of those sources, then yes we could say in Wikivoice that Walsh is transphobic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH is an essay, it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Trying to support your arguments by pointing to essays that are not policy or even guidelines is weak, as are your arguments here. If there were "a bundle of independent media sources" discussing this issue, my position might change, but there aren't. And even in your example, the most we could do is say "has been described as..."- not stating it as fact, as it was done with regards to the image misuse allegation. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If controversies surrounding the film violate WP:BLP, why don't we remove the entire criticism section then? We don't want to accuse a living person of creating pseudoscientific, hateful propaganda against a marginalized group that already faces hate crimes, conversion therapy, and worse, do we?
 * To be serious, if something is covered in a reliable source, then it does not violate WP:BLP. The truth is that Matt Walsh used someone's picture without their consent, and if that alone implies that he may have committed a crime, it's something he has to deal with. This article does not imply anything more than the source itself does. Regardless, "fair use" does not change the aspect of this that it is extremely shitty to do, and I have doubt as to how much people care about that legal technicality. PBZE (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SO, if you bother to read the article, you;'d see there's no "criticism" section. But, it might have one, if there was a notable controversy . But there isn't one. There's a single source, which is not mainstream, with a biased author, and [{WP:BLP]] is clear on this point - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. No matter how distasteful you find Walsh, this article is supposed to be about the movie, not a place for editors to accuse living people of creating pseudoscientific, hateful propaganda. Izzy Borden (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot (a green RS) is the best source describing the dispute, but it is not the only source. Regardless, you are the only editor who has asserted this is a BLP matter. If you think other editors are wrong, you could ask the BLP noticeboard. Llll5032 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. is not clear to you? And BLP is not the only concern, undue weight was raised by several editors. I don't think you quite understand how this consensus thing works, let me help you out: WP:ONUS The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, no editor has agreed that the rule you cite (in BLP) applies to this dispute. Regarding consensus, let's stick to the top two or three tiers of the pyramid at WP:TPNO. Most experienced editors know how ONUS works. For relatively longstanding content previously discussed on a talk page, we can also consider WP:PRESERVE. Llll5032 (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * again, BLP is not the only concern, undue weight was raised by several editors. This is not long standing content, it was objected to since it was entered into the article. If you know how ONUS works, why are you sending me to start a discussion at some other noticeboard? Izzy Borden (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The suggestion to ask on the relevant notice board is part of Dispute resolution. It's a way to get external input from editors who are uninvolved in this dispute over whether or not to include the sentence/source. Because there's more than two editors involved, we can't do a WP:3O, and asking on the relevant policy noticeboard is more lightweight of a solution than going to WP:DRN or launching an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, and as the policy says, the onus to do this is on those wishing to include disputed content. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Izzy Borden blocked as sockpuppet
Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 Doug Weller  talk 07:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. That account seemed a bit suspicious. X-Editor (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

POV tag added by single purpose account IP
@David Gerard Would you mind explaining why you think a category added by a single purpose account IP which has been reverted everywhere else it was added should remain in this article? You also did not explain why you reverted my edit, which you have to do. Pinging since they reverted the other edits. X-Editor (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it obviously fits the category, multiple editors think so, and it seems tendentious to try to claim it doesn't - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And multiple editors also don't think so, including the ones I pinged above. X-Editor (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * where? - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here and here. Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough where these objections happened. X-Editor (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It does not appear the content and sourcing of this article supports such a category.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. None of the sourcing explicitly calls the documentary discrimination. X-Editor (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Budget RS?
Does anyone have a reliable source for budget? It is relevant but there is no RS available. 57rowla (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Assymetrical reactions.
While it is evident from the article itself, I don't think I see an unambiguous summary that explicitly states that the positive responses come exclusively from right wing pundits, while negative responses come from activists, professional critics and subject-matter experts. I believe this should be specified in the lede. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that’s fair. Dronebogus (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

'Activists and Medical Experts'
The lede read as noting that the film was heavily criticized by 'activists and medical experts', but there are not citations for medical experts, plural, in the article. One doctor is cited, AJ Eckert, who self-identifies as an 'advocate'. No citations citing multiple medical experts are present. MultaDiscens (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What he describes himself is hardly relevant. The question is, is he a medical expert in the field or not. It's hard to imagine any subject matter expert who wouldn't describe themselves as an "advocate" considering the sheer amount of misinformation that's being circulated about transgender issues by bad faith political actors. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The question is not whether this person is an expert, because the lede is not 'activists and one medical expert', but 'medical experts', plural. Only one individual is cited, and the lede is citing the responses of multiple, not elevating the response of a single individual. MultaDiscens (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Permitted use of Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.
I'm here as an uninvolved Admin to advise about the use of these after warning an editor that they may be topic banned due to their behavior. WP:RSNP says

"Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable."

"The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see WP:IMDB-EL)." Doug Weller talk 06:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently the above comment was directed primarily at User:Wisefroggy, but it does no harm to remind all editors that Audiences scores such as those from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are not allowed (according to the guidelines WP:UGC and WP:RS). -- 109.77.192.78 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What can be done here about a movie when there are not enough reviews to recieve a "TOMATOMETER" score but lots of ratings (5000+) to generate an Audience Score? Asherkobin (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the moment, nothing. As the audience scores are user generated, policy tells us they are unreliable. Any commentary on the lack of a tomatometer score would be original research in lack of an independent reliable secondary source. Even if there was such a source however, I do not think it would be due for inclusion.
 * If an editor tried to add content on the user scores, it should be removed per the relevant policy and guidance. If there is a reliable source on the lack of reviews, then a discussion could be held on whether it was relevant for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm back here after forgetting about my question. As of now (Oct 4), Rotten Tomatoes has 6 reviews with an 83% score. It may be all moot now. I haven't even read the succeeding comments or the current article :) Asherkobin (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an edit warring editor who does not seem to understand that is normal to include the Rotten Tomatoes critics score (that some call the "TOMATOMETER" score) in a film article but that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is not allowed. There was never any objection to include the Rotten Tomatoes critics score. The only reason the Rotten Tomatoes critics score was not already included in this article because there was no score it did not exist yet. Until there were more than 4 reviews Rotten Tomatoes does not give an official critics score. There is no need to exclude the Rotten Tomatoes critics score. (The audience score is another matter and should remain excluded unless there are WP:SECONDARY sources and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make a special exception, which seems unlikely.) -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This edit appears to object to the inclusion of the critics score. I also object, based on the very small number of critics represented. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That diff to Revision as of 00:35, 20 June 2022 was a comment by 109.77.192.78 that was objecting to excluding Walsh's accusation that Rolling Stone did not actually watch the documentary. That comment also happened to mention that there were only 4 reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes at that time. You can see what the Rotten Tomatoes page looked like when there only 4 reviews listed (via Web Archive) and there was no critic score at that time. There was no objection to including the Rotten Tomatoes critic score in that comment (I should know, I wrote it, not that it even matters) there simply was not any Rotten Tomatoes score available yet. -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why the addition of two more critics scores merits inclusion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really an argument. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is normal to include a Rotten Tomatoes critics score if and when it is available. There was no Rotten Tomatoes score available and that was why it was not included. (Some editors really have tried before to simply calculate the score themselves, when there were only 4 or less reviews. Some editors generally do not like including Rotten Tomatoes at all and it is a crude tool but on balance I think it is better to include it.)
 * If you User:Newimpartial want to argue that the Rotten Tomatoes score should not be included you can make that argument now, but that argument has not been made before on this article, that is not what the previous discussions were saying. Sure, I'd prefer if there were more than 6 reviews listed but I think it is better to include it than not. I would not exclude the Rotten Tomatoes score from a horror film with only a small selection of reviews and I would not exclude it from this article either now that it is actually available. Other editors may disagree with me and agree with you, but I believe it helps readers to see that of the very many reviews and commentary pieces we have included in this article only 6 of those pass for what Rotten Tomatoes considers reviews from reputable film critics. -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the partisan nature of the reception for this film, I do not believe that the inclusion of an RT score - based on a very small number of critics - is of any use to the reader. This objection would not apply to a horror film, but it would apply to a political film of a different orientation with a similar amount of critical reception. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been a partisan choice to refuse to review this documentary at all, and the article already states that important bit of context. (I'd have been happier if instead of an opinion piece Rolling Stone had done a proper review and panned it.) The Rotten Tomatoes score is flawed in many ways but it isn't any more flawed here than anywhere else. Presenting the Rotten Tomatoes score same as we would in any other film article in this encyclopedia doesn't change the context. Also don't underestimate horror films either, an artistic psychological horror can please critics and bore the gore fans just as easily as a political film can alienate half the audience. (I'm sure you can find a film that is highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes that you think is terrible. Sometimes it might be artistically pretentious terrible, sometimes it might be politically terrible, or it just might not be to your taste. The Rotten Tomatoes score isn't the be all and end all.) A big score on Rotten Tomatoes is no guarantee of film you'll actually like. We've included the scores other political films from America: Imagine the World Without Her to Fauci (film) despite the fact that some see it as political even choosing to review them. The few critics that reviewed this documentary did overall think it was worth watching but they pointed out plenty of flaws while they did so. By all means present things in context and state that but it would seem more unusual partisan to me to make exceptions and exclude the Rotten Tomatoes score or treat things different every time a film is politicized. It would not serve readers or make a better encyclopedia to leave it out. Include it with context. -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The basis for excluding Rotten Tomatoes in this feels extremely weak, I fear the argument being made here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Editors have also made the "low number of reviews" argument before too, and I think you could probably find someone who will agree with that again (out of a general dislike of Rotten Tomatoes in general and a dislike of this documentary in particular) but it would be more objective and neutral to treat this just like any other film article. Including the Rotten Tomatoes score isn't going to change the many commentators who were so very clearly critical of this documentary. -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, except where it represents a formal norm established by a WikiProject, your recommendation to treat this just like any other film article doesn't fit with Wikipedia's processes of consensus determination.
 * Also, I don't think you have really understood my objection - it is not that reviews of political films are more polarized than the reviews of horror films or films of other genres (which may or may not be true). My objection is that the politicization of the reviews of this film, in the context of a very small number of reviews by professional critics, results in scores that say nothing whatsoever about the quality or reception of the film, only documenting that the film has mostly been reviewed by critics who accept its premise. We don't need RT scores to demonstrate this, and the RT critic score would add nothing to the understanding readers gain from this article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (RT)
1. I do not think that 6 professional reviews is a small number for a movie that was released on 1 niche streaming service. 2. Rotten tomatoes determined that it was enough to give it a score, they could have decided that political films need more professional reviews but they did not. 3. The idea that only reviews that accepted the premise of the movie were allowed to record their review is unsupported by evidence. Text parser (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think a sample of six largely biased reviewers merits the inclusion of the aggregate score, please obtain consensus for this view. It seems implausible to me. Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please address all my arguments. Wikipedia's consensus is that "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) If you disagree with this general rule you need to provide arguments that this should not apply in this situation. Just asserting that reviews are biased is not enough because all reviews for all movies are biased in one way or another. Text parser (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a direct statement of consensus: "Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV." (see Reliable sources/Perennial sources). The critics score is review aggregation. Part of their aggregation decision is that they determined that 6 reviews is indeed enough since they added it to their website. Rotten Tomatoes does this aggregation using human curators. (see https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about curation section) Text parser (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I haven't seen any evidence on this Talk page (or elsewhere, for that matter) that applying the general consensus about RT to this specific case is supported by a consensus of editors. Without such a consensus, the material you favor adding to the article is to be excluded per WP:ONUS. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me to find another set of editor that agreed on adding the critics score of this movie? Is that a requirement for adding content to Wikipedia? If it is then I would like to see that rule.
 * You asked me to provide Wikipedia consensus the 6 reviews is enough. While that is defiantly not required I provided evidence that Wikipedia editors regard Rotten Tomatoes to be a reliable source and that Rotten Tomatoes considers that the reviews are enough.
 * Regarding WP:ONUS, I have presented evidence that the source is reliable and why it should be included. I don't know what verifiability has anything to do with what we are talking about. Text parser (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The general principle of ONUS applies to all disputed content, not just content whose verifiability is in question. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, Adding an aggregated review score is helpful because it shows what some critics think of the movie so it should be included. Text parser (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be specific, It is useful to show readers what a respectable review aggregator thinks what some critics think of this movie. Text parser (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I know you believe that. But as far as I know, you are the only editor who believes that those factors outweigh the concerns that have been expressed in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User: 109.79.67.41 above and me have argued that the critics score should be added, "you are the only editor who" is arguing for not including it.
 * We to addressed every single concern you came up with but you did not rebut our arguments. Text parser (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn't the way WP:CONSENSUS works. Other editors have also contested your controversial addition. You cannot unilaterally decide that We to addressed every single concern you came up with as a rationale to reinsert content against consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The edits cited are because the issue was still being discussed. I addressed all issues that you raised. If any other editor has concerns regarding the inclusion they can certainly add them to the talk page. Text parser (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newimpartial's reasoning for currently excluding. I might favor using the score if a WP:GREL secondary RS made note of it, especially if it was put into some context, similar to what Sideswipe9th wrote. Llll5032 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sideswipe9th was talking about the user score Audiences scores not the critics score which is considered reliable since it is generated by Rotten Tomatoes (see Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Can you elaborate on what you mean by context? Text parser (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By "context", I meant that if a secondary RS described why the film was reviewed by so few reviewers along with the score, it could merit inclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So something like the following:
 * "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported an approval rating of 83% based on 6 reviews. However, mainstream reviewers avoided reviewing the movie."
 * https://taibbi.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman-a-movie-that-should Text parser (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Something like that, if a WP:GREL source said it instead of a WP:SPS. Llll5032 (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with NI and L. A good point is raised by the essay WP:ROTTEN on the dangers of using RT when there are less than 10 or so reviews, calling the sample "not large enough for the score to be statistically accurate". I'm extra dubious of this aggregation, as it includes the review of Christian Toto, a Daily Wire contributor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With six reviews, Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer should not be included—this is a big pet peeve of mine. The sample size is too small, as WP:ROTTEN correctly notes, but many people ignore. I believe 20 reviews is a good rule of thumb threshold.A much more major issue, however, is the segregation of reviews into "Positive" and "Negative". Per WP:CSECTION, both positive and negative material should be incorporated within an article based on content (and per due weight this would be in the ratio of positive to negative commentary that exists on the subject). As Copyediting reception sections advises, even the reviews themselves should not be separated: a Reception section should be divided into different aspects of commentary (e.g. whether the documentary was: well-researched; convincing; entertaining; clearly structured; filmed and edited well), with different reviews contrasted within every paragraph. It often takes a few rounds of edits for an article to reach this point with any coherence. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine
Firstly, shouldn't the author AJ Eckert be given their proper title, either Dr. AJ Eckert or Dr. AJ Eckert D.O.? It seems important to distinguish that Eckert is not another journalist but a medical professional.

I think editors should be aware that Science-Based Medicine is not without relevant context on this issue, but it would be too verbose and to mention any of that directly in this article about the documentary. There is also context to contributor Dr. Eckert, they are a provider "of gender-affirming services, including hormone treatment and puberty blockers" but again I don't think this article is the place to explain any of that context. I do think it is a little misleading to include two separate separate paragraphs of commentary from that source, or to include it anywhere other than the Negative section. By all means include it but keep the opinions of Dr. Eckert together in the one place. -- 109.79.175.67 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to the edit summary I disagree with the suggestion that any of Dr. Eckert's commentary is actually neutral. -- 109.79.175.67 (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said in my, these are two different bits of commentary from Eckert. The commentary on the distribution of advertisement for the film is not negative or positive. It is remarking on the distribution without making or implying any judgement on it. To move that to the negative section would be to imply something that Eckert does not. We cannot change the meaning of our sources. The second piece of commentary is explicitly negative, so to move it to any other section would be to again change its meaning.
 * MOS:CREDENTIAL and MOS:POSTNOM are the relevant guidelines for inclusion or exclusion of a person's titles and post-nominals. I know that in other articles where we cite Eckert we do not use their title.
 * Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source, per a 2019 RfC on it. If you feel otherwise, the correct venue is the reliable sources noticeboard though I would recommend strong evidence of its unreliability would be required to challenge its status as reliable. We do not and should not include any additional detail on the source, or Eckert personally per WP:COATRACK as this is not an article on either SBM or Eckert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not including credentials does seem to be in keeping with the policies cited. By all means include it I did not say it was not a reliable source, but reliable sources can (and usually do) have their own bias. (CNN is very reliable, it has bias, but most readers understanding where CNN is coming from.) I think it both SBM and Dr. Eckert have a bias on this subject. Eckert is implicitly making a judgement by commenting on it at all, by labeling people who promote the documentary as "opposed to gender-affirming care", which not neutral but loaded with meaning. An editorial judgment is being made by including it first and foremost at the top of the reception section, and is changing its meaning by presenting it that way.
 * I think perhaps this is merely a symptom of a larger problem I have with the way the whole Reactions and Reception sections are (dis)organized, getting increasingly bloated, and quite unlike most other film articles. The expansion of the top unnamed subsection of the Reception section with the comments from Eckert is merely another part of it. I have my bias but ultimately I'd like to see a better encyclopedia article. I don't have the answers but this article is a long long way from being anything like any Good article. -- 109.79.175.67 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a long way from being a Good Article, but not all articles on WP have to be GAs. X-Editor (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note here that when we attribute a view to an expert, rather than saying Dr. AJ Eckert says X we would usually instead say AJ Eckert, a doctor in the field of trans medicine, says X. We don't have to omit their expertise and probably shouldn't. Loki (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Walsh "arguing for his views" at top
I restored the phrase per WP:BESTSOURCES, because Walsh's arguments in the film are noted by WP:GREL sources cited in the article. Is there a good argument for omitting it? Llll5032 (talk)
 * I think we should use considerably stronger language than "arguing for his views". The SBM source is both a) highly reliable, since it's from a subject matter expert and b) absolutely scathing in its description of the film, using words like "misinformation", "conspiracy theories" and "blatantly false". And it's not the only such source. Honestly, this article in general needs quite a lot of WP:NPOV cleanup. WP:NPOV means we reflect the sources, not that we take some sort of view from nowhere. Loki (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 100% agree. this article is very biased. we should be able to discuss the subject in a rational, unbiased manner. BasX88 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Top
X-Editor and Dronebogus, have enough non-conservative Christian commentators reviewed the film for the article to say that there are positive reviews from Christian commentators as a group? I removed the phrase Christian but kept "conservative commentators". Llll5032 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that only conservative christian commentators have reviewed the film, so I don't think there is enough to say that for Christians as a whole. X-Editor (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who watched the documentary will know that the article in its latest version is completely biased and inaccurate. it should absolutely be reverted to the last revision. the wording in its current state is very clearly activist language and does NOT reflect neutrality. BasX88 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Some or Few?
The current phrasing on the wiki reads, "The documentary received a divided reception, being praised by conservative reviewers, while being called transphobic by liberal, left-wing, and LGBT commentators." However, as I attempted to correct, some LGBT commentators, such as trans woman Blaire White, praised the film. My original correction read that the film was "praised by conservative reviewers and some LGBT commentators, while being called transphobic by liberal, left-wing, and other LGBT commentators." However, this correction was taken down. Recognizing that this new phrasing could be interpreted as misrepresenting the number of LGBT commentators praising the film, would an acceptable correction be, "The documentary received a divided reception, being praised by conservative reviewers, while being called transphobic by liberal, left-wing, and most LGBT commentators. However, a few LGBT commentators voiced support for the film"? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates Finch (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If no consensus is reached in the next few days, I will go ahead and make the change. Socrates Finch (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you also "correct" it to note that the film was also criticized by some conservative commentators? If not, is this because you've established that a greater proportion of LGBT commentators are willing to reject basic standards of evidence and ethics than the proportion of conservative commentators who will accept those standards, or because you want to give the impression that the balance of opinion is more in favor of this opinion piece than it is? 2600:8801:C800:1BD:A9C2:E016:829F:EE13 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * this documentary is not transphobic. i am on the left and characterizing it as such is disingenuous at best. fully support adding "some left-wing and pro-LGBT commentators approve of the film." BasX88 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023 (2)
was asked this question in an interview with Piers Morgan and had a responded differently. His answer was:[59]

Change bolded statement to "had a different response"

Reason: Grammar Plague von Karma (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not sure if this phrasing is wholly correct as I think there's a better way to phrase it, but it is an improvement over what was there before. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023
this article seems extremely biased from an opposing view. language like this is 'anti-trans propaganda' or 'full of false or misleading statements' is simply inaccurate. i think this is an extremely serious issue and we must adhere to neutrality. the documentary has input from actual medical professionals and the first-hand experience of people. how can we make such editorial claims on wikipedia? we cannot amend or adjust truth to satisfy either side on the debate. extremely disappointed by what i am seeing here. BasX88 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done It's not clear what specific change is being requested, as called for in the instructions.  signed, Willondon (talk)  19:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The quote "in the process making many false claims and spreading misinformation." in the first paragraph is leading, does not adhere to neutrality, attempts to make a factual statement about an opinion, and does not accurately reflect statements in the source. This documentary simply presents facts and asks questions, which is somehow construed as "propaganda" and "anti-trans" which makes no sense; extremely biased activists will often make this claim but I think we can understand the difference here. The source does say "he discussed the current scientific understanding of sex and gender, the many misconceptions about it, as well as some of the anti-trans misinformation based on those misconceptions" which you will note is not the same thing as "in the process making many false claims and spreading misinformation."
 * This sentence implies that by simply discussing these topics and presenting an opinion, we can dismiss valid questions as "spreading misinformation." The prior version was impartial, why change it to appease a particular side? This normally wouldn't be such a big issue but given the heated nature of the debate and active attempts to suppress or dismiss the mere act of asking questions or questioning a particular premise. BasX88 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Adopt Neutral Language

 * The quote "in the process making many false claims and spreading misinformation." in the first paragraph is leading, does not adhere to neutrality, attempts to make a factual statement about an opinion, and does not accurately reflect statements in the source. It also implies that this opinion is generally accepted as fact which does not reflect the broader debate around this subject; it is by no means "settled".
 * The source does say "he discussed the current scientific understanding of sex and gender, the many misconceptions about it, as well as some of the anti-trans misinformation based on those misconceptions" which you will note is not the same thing as "in the process making many false claims and spreading misinformation." Asking questions about a topic is not the same thing as spreading lies about said topic. We should not fall for this kind of logical fallacy, whether it originates on the far right, or the far left.
 * We cannot dismiss valid questions as "spreading misinformation." The prior version was impartial. This normally wouldn't be such a big issue but given the heated nature of the debate and active attempts to suppress or dismiss the mere premise of asking questions makes this significant. Impartiality is necessary above all. I will say that this documentary simply presents facts and asks questions, which is somehow construed as "propaganda" and "anti-trans." This is often mentioned by extremely biased activists but it doesn't make any sense. I have never seen a topic where fact and opinion are so blurred, it's like people are unable to distinguish between these two concepts on this very particular topic.

BasX88 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-trans propaganda film" label
I disagree with the documentary being labelled an "anti-trans propaganda film", at least in the title. The source being cited is from https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-asks-a-question/. The author is AJ Eckert, who is clearly not writing this article as a neutral journalist - it reads closer to an opinion piece, so I think it should be treated as such. From a little digging, Eckert also seems to be a pseudo-activist at best, so I think that they could have a partisan axe to grind, which is not uncommon, but further evidence that this source should be treated as an opinion piece. It might be worth citing this source later in the article, perhaps under "Reactions" or "Receptions". SteepAtticStairs (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Usage as a question section
The opening - and in context, justifying - sentence for this section is:'' Since the film's release, the question "What is a woman?" has become a frequently asked and debated question, particularly in Western political contexts. It is uncited, and difficult to justify, it implies that the film has created (rather than possibly 'cashed in on'. or simply contributed to)'' a debate. Whether the film has influenced the framing of any debate, I don't know, that would be difficult to ascertain, but I would have thought the question itself has been asked for (at least) as long as any debate about trans-women. That debate may have intensified recently, but goes back to the first cases of trans-women becoming public in the 1960s.

The whole section seems WP:OR to me and somewhat off-topic regarding responses to this film. Pincrete (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with this. While I don't doubt it has certainly contributed to increased awareness on the matter, it is difficult to quantify. A Google Trends search will clearly show that the question is asked at least 300% more than before its release (using 1 year average) but whether that is for the movie itself or the actual question is difficult to ascertain. It would seem to be true even if we adjust the data to account for the increase around its release. Nevertheless, I will let the community decide whether this can be used as supporting evidence. BasX88 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Section deleted per OR. Ixocactus (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect characterisation of Policy 8040
The comment on Policy 8040, which states that this Policy "... would allow transgender students to use their preferred name and pronouns ..." is incorrect. The policy is not about the student using a name or pronouns, but forcing teachers to use the name and pronoun talking to and about the student. It is a policy constraining the teacher, not permitting the student as currently written. To quote the policy, "school staff shall, at the request of a student or legal parent/guardian, use a student's chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their consistently asserted gender identity".

The current wording makes no sense, as the student is not bound by the policy. It is also obvious to the reader that it makes no sense as the student is the one presumed to be choosing. As currently written it simply looks like dishonest wording, weasel words, to avoid mentioning that the policy is coercive regulation of speech. This reduces the credibility of an article which is otherwise fair and balanced, and reduces the credibility of those who might support this policy by giving a suggestion of unwillingness to defend it honestly because the reader is likely to assume the misleading wording is chosen to make those opposed to the policy seem unreasonable/more unreasonable (depending on the reader's existing view of those opponents).

Source: https://www.lcps.org/Page/237614 86.31.71.9 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree on much of what you're saying, but I don't mind adding a bit to clarify the policy. See this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023
In the release section, 6th paragraph, the year 2024 should be changed to 2023. Also change DailyWire to two words.

Change this: On 2024 The DailyWire entered into a distribution deal with Twitter however on June 2024 To This: In May of 2024 The Daily Wire entered into a distribution deal with Twitter however in early June 2024 Wiki-validate (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Actualcpscm (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023
I suggest adding the final view count on twitter 162.7 million+ and counting, before DailyWire takes it off twitter at the end of the weekend, points to cultural significance. 162.228.255.138 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A09 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com/realdailywire/status/1664424891372941312?s=46&t=QzFSFOud6SlCeWPwEzFq4g 102.85.130.27 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "View count" is misleading. Per Elon Musk, it simply reflects how many times the fact that there's a video present was viewed. Not views of the FULL piece, nor even necessarily views of any part of it. ntnon (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See below, secondary sources say 170 million, among other things that would be good to add to the article. 208.117.96.2 (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With regards to sources talking about the film's success and twitter hit rate, here's some sources that might be okay to use:
 * One Year After its Initial Release, ‘What Is A Woman?’ Passes 177 Million Views on Twitter Within A Week The source also mentions that critics refuse to review it, but audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes is high.
 * Documentary “What Is A Woman?” Dominates Twitter; Reaches 172 Million Views Over The Weekend This source calls one of the most popular documentaries of all time: "received more than 172 million views, making it one of the most popular documentaries of all time". Source also addresses audience and critic reviews: "The documentary also had a 96% audience approval rating before what appeared to be a barrage of LGBTQ activists took to the site and gave the film one-star reviews which caused the rating to drop slightly below 90%." and "Despite the film becoming extremely popular, The Daily Wire has noted that none of the respected critics from The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, NPR, BuzzFeed News, Wall Street Journal, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, and many others, have given it a review."
 * Why Matt Walsh's What Is A Woman? became one of the most successful documentaries of all time. Source lists 170 million views. Also has an interview with Walsh by Piers Morgan (I haven't looked at the content). There's a quote of Walsh's own assessment, "This is the biggest film in the world right now. It calmly eviscerates this absurdity by allowing the people who advance the looniest arguments to tie themselves in their own knots."
 * Good material to add. I'd do it, but this article is blocked from IP editing.
 * 208.117.96.2 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You are giving an opinion in this quote “ Walsh incorrectly attributes the concept of gender identity to the psychologist John Money…”
The sentence should be more neutral like “Walsh attributes the concept of gender identity to the psychologist John Money…”

He attributed the popularity of the term to John Money.

According to the Wikipedia page of gender identity John Money was the one to popularise the term.

The statement is biased and contradicts other Wikipedia page. 62.198.133.70 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Editors don't like that it's true, so they lie. 96.2.248.142 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposed rewording doesn’t make the sentence more neutral, it just makes it less correct. Walsh attributes a concept to someone, and this attribution is incorrect, therefore, “Walsh incorrectly attributes the concept” is a perfectly fine wording. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * IP 62 is correct; the statement that “Walsh misattributes the concept of gender identity to the psychologist John Money" is too strong a statement to be made in WP:WikiVoice, which would require evidence that the *majority of reliable sources" support this statement. But we do not have a majority of reliable sources to support it, in fact, we don't have any reliable sources at all&mdash;what we have is the letter to the editor written by Byrne, i.e., one man's opinion. This is nowhere near the sourcing requirements to make this assertion in the article. Either reliable sources should be found to support it, or it must be removed; since Walsh is alive, per WP:BLP I have toned down the wording to say "contested attribution" which more closely fits the actual state of affairs.
 * A secondary, but more subtle point perhaps, is the use of the word concept (as in, "coined the concept") as opposed to the expression coined the term. I've changed it to the latter, for a couple of reasons: terms can be coined, and reliable evidence may be able to be found to support it conclusively. Coining a concept is unusual usage, and who actually created or invented or discovered a concept is a more slippery thing to get ahold of, and an evolution among multiple individuals is often involved. This is the case here, and in fact one could argue that Money did invent the concept of gender identity but did not coin the term; if you read the 1955 definition Money gave for the *term* gender role, you will see that it doesn't define what we now understand as the concept of "gender role"; rather, Money's gender role definition quite closely matches our current understanding of "gender identity". One might even say that Money invented the concept of gender identity, but never used that term, calling it gender role instead, which has now evolved to mean something else, namely, societal expectations attached to gender, as opposed to an individual's internal sense of it applying only to themself.
 * Accordingly, I've softened the statement in section to this:
 * Walsh makes a contested attribution of the term gender identity to the psychologist John Money
 * in order to take into account both of these points. Mathglot (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Should the sentence be removed until Walsh's claim is more directly addressed in independent RS (per WP:PSTS and WP:DUEWEIGHT)? Llll5032 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Should not the description "It is frequently described as anti-transgender or transphobic" have been allocated in the topic "Reception", instead of being randomly inserted in the introductory section? 177.50.57.75 (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "Should the description... have been". 177.50.57.75 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEADREL, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." To resolve the discrepancy, I added a list to the beginning of the Reception section of the WP:GREL sources that make each claim. Llll5032 (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023
Change "It is frequently described as anti-transgender or transphobic." To "The documentary searches for and exposes essential truth while giving the opposing view ample opportunity to explain itself, yet instead of logically refuting the documentary critics have engaged in ad-hominem attacks of anti-transgenderism or transphobia." 2603:7000:2502:2B00:8C21:A01D:C2EE:C920 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Only ultraleftist websites cited for "transphonic" label

 * It is frequently described as anti-transgender or transphobic.

All of the sources cited for this statement are left to far-left. This is completely WP:UNDUE. 81.214.107.198 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is run by leftists. Good luck. 172.58.27.82 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing specific improvements to the article. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Hist9600 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement that "It is frequently described as anti-transgender or transphobic." is not technically wrong, as several sources have described the film as such. The page is not saying that it is anti-transgender or transphobic, just that people have described it as such. There is a difference between the two. X-Editor (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @X-Editor The fact that the statement is given in WP:WIKIVOICE does not necessarily make it neutral. A statement can still violate WP:NPOV, if it is WP:UNDUE. If you check the cited sources (NBC, Independent, New Republic, Pink News, Intelligencer) are all left to hard-line leftist sources. Here's what our Wikipedia article states about the Science-Based Medicine It is clear that this is a violation of WP:UNDUE; the thing to do now is to remove it. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited the wording in the article, including the prose. Removing the significant viewpoint altogether is, as I feel, unnecessary because due to the amount of reliable sources that view it as transphobic, it does not violate WP:UNDUE due to the proportionate amount of sources that do view it as such being significant information. B3251 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I like the current wording better from B3251. X-Editor (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorsed. 95.12.119.26 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)